帮助行为正犯化的网络语境 ——兼及对犯罪参与理论的省思

网络犯罪的帮助行为较传统犯罪的帮助行为出现了异化,依据传统共犯理论难以实现对网络帮助行为严重社会危害性及其较高独立性的充分评价,司法解释层面与立法层面均创制了网络帮助行为正犯化的归责模式。帮助行为正犯化与犯罪参与理论密切相关,实质客观说为帮助行为正犯化的创制提供了契机,但实质客观说与我国双层区分制抵牾,对我国共犯立法双层区分制的准确理解与坚守,可以避免一些不必要的帮助行为正犯化的立法。     

共犯最小从属性说之再提倡——兼论帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的性质

限制从属性说以正犯行为同时具有构成要件该当性与违法性作为共犯的成立前提,因而面临无法有效应对新型网络共同犯罪的危机。为解决这一危机,该说中有着眼于帮助对象必须是他人的"犯罪",主张帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪只是"帮助犯的量刑规则"的,也有以刑法分则条文的定罪机能为根据,提出"帮助犯正犯化"说的。但是,共犯的违法性不从属于正犯,正犯合法之时共犯亦可能违法,正犯违法之时共犯亦可能合法,因而应采取最小从属性说。在该说看来,帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪在属于独立罪名这一意义上,具有正犯性,而在只有为他人"犯罪"提供帮助才能成立犯罪这一意义上,又具有共犯性,因而是一种介于正犯与共犯之间的"混合归责模式"。这种理解虽然看似违反形式逻辑,但其恰恰是对刑法第287条之二的忠实解读,且完全符合司法解释主张原则上应从属于正犯犯罪,但在严格限制的前提下可以仅从属于正犯实行行为的态度。     

共犯行为正犯化的立法探索与理论梳理 ——以“帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪”立法定位为角度的分析

面对网络共同犯罪中帮助行为的危害性超越和独立性的突破,传统共犯理论略显手足无措。应当坦率地从罪情演变和理论套路的紧张关系出发进行对话,理解和完善既有的司法规则和立法条文。形式共犯论可以解决部分问题,但实质共犯论下的共犯独立性思路更为有效。司法实践对于网络共犯的制裁进行了探索,形成了三种模式并存的态势,构成了正犯化的三种途径,也面临着定量标准协调和罪刑法定限制的问题。立法修正从特殊帮助行为的正犯化到一般帮助行为的正犯化,都需要厘清其性质争议和正当性质疑,进一步完善犯罪圈与罪刑相当。共犯行为的正犯化需要司法解释和立法完善的双轨推进。     

帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的再探讨

“共犯的正犯化”以对正犯与共犯采取区分制为前提,帮助行为成立犯罪若不以正犯的存在为前提,则是共犯的正犯化,但帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪因以正犯的存在为前提,故不可能是共犯的正犯化。行为的危害性大、能被独立定罪,以及刑法对帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪规定了独立罪状与法定刑等,都不是共犯正犯化的根据;司法解释的相关规定也并非共犯正犯化的法律依据。以帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪论处的案件之所以多,主要是因为司法机关误解共犯的成立条件、错误适用从旧兼从轻原则、未运用想象竞合原理,以及为了减轻对正犯的证明责任,导致将大量诈骗等罪的共犯认定为帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪。只有在抽象的认识错误、正犯的犯罪性质未能查明等场合,才可能对相关帮助行为以帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪论处;在所谓“一对多”的场合,若各被帮助者的行为没有达到罪量要求,则帮助者的行为也不成立帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪。从立法论上说,废除帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪或许是良策。     

网络黑产链犯罪中帮助行为的刑法评价

网络黑产链犯罪中的帮助行为与传统共同犯罪中的帮助行为有较大的区别,具体表现在行为人的主观故意内容、帮助行为与正犯行为的关联程度及行为的作用效果等方面。然而,目前对网络黑产链犯罪中帮助行为人以共同犯罪论处存在理论障碍,如欠缺共同故意且正犯行为难以认定为犯罪等。司法实践将帮助行为正犯化确实具有现实需要。帮助行为正犯化的论域应当限定在正犯、共犯分离二元参与体系的形式正犯概念之下。在我国刑法分则对实行行为明确定型的立法体制下,司法机关超越解释权限将帮助行为扩张为实行行为的解释与罪刑法定原则有悖。帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的增设是网络帮助行为正犯化理论的典型立法实践,但成立该罪既不要求帮助行为人对被帮助者实施的具体犯罪内容有明确的认识,也不要求被帮助的犯罪行为在实体上或程序上被认定为犯罪。     

共犯处罚根据论的反思与修正:新混合惹起说的提出

混合惹起说虽然是共犯处罚根据论的通说,但是其最大不足在于,无法有效应对新型网络共同犯罪。造成这种问题的根本原因是,混合惹起说以限制从属性说作为理论基础,主张只有犯罪结果对正犯与共犯而言均具有违法性,才可能处罚共犯。然而,既然共同犯罪的本质是行为的共同而非犯罪的共同,成立共犯理应只需从属于正犯的实行行为,而且,对正犯的违法性评价未必连带作用于共犯,因而可以采取最小从属性说,无须采取限制从属性说。如此,就需要对混合惹起说进行修正:处罚共犯,只要求犯罪结果对共犯而言具有违法性即可,无需对正犯也具有违法性。这样既可以有效地应对新型网络共同犯罪等问题,也可以对共犯故意创造"利益冲突状态"的行为作出准确评价。     

帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪的教义学分析 共犯从属性原则的坚守

帮助信息网络犯罪活动罪系堵截性罪名，其设立并非对传统共犯评价模式的否定，而仅仅是对无法按照总则中共犯规定但又有处罚必要的网络帮助行为所做的类型化的应对。在性质上，本罪属于刑法分则规定的特殊帮助犯，而非共犯行为的正犯化。本罪的成立，仅要求被帮助对象(正犯)实施符合构成要件的违法行为即可(限制从属性说)。依据因果共犯论，在“一对多”型共同犯罪的场合，应对各个正犯的违法的量予以累加，并据此判断是否达到可罚的违法程度。本罪中的“帮助”,不仅指直接的帮助，也包括间接的帮助(帮助的帮助)。明知他人利用信息网络实施电信诈骗、开设赌场等犯罪而提供帮助的，属于上游网络犯罪的帮助犯与本罪的竞合，应从一重罪处断。掩饰、隐瞒犯罪所得、犯罪所得收益罪系在他人犯罪既遂之后对其赃物的处置，而非对本犯实施的实行行为进行协力或加功(即非事前或者事中的帮助),与违法结果之间不具有因果性，因而不能与本犯形成共犯关系。     

论我国刑法不采取共犯从属性说及利弊

我国刑法采取不区分正犯与共犯的单一正犯(或单一行为人)体系,不存在共犯从属性说赖以存在的犯罪参与体系之基础。《刑法》总则第29条第2款明文规定处罚教唆未遂;刑法分则将许多教唆行为、帮助行为规定为独立的犯罪,将某些犯罪的教唆行为、帮助行为明文规定为与实行行为同等对待,表明我国刑法没有采取共犯从属性说。实行从属性原则不具有理论上的合理性,它会不适当地缩小教唆犯和帮助犯的处罚范围,有可能放纵一些特别危险的教唆犯罪和帮助犯罪的发生。德、日刑法学中有关要素从属性的几种不同学说是以三阶层的犯罪论体系为基础的,一些观点认为我国传统的通说采取了极端从属性说,肯定了共犯对正犯故意的从属性,显然是忽视了我国传统刑法学与德日刑法学以及我国刑法与德日刑法的重大差异。我国不采取共犯从属性说是一种明智的选择,虽然不采取共犯从属说存在扩大教唆犯和帮助犯处罚范围的风险,但是这种风险可以通过完善立法和司法的途径来有效控制。     

中立帮助行为及其过当

中立帮助行为由起因要件、主观要件和客观要件构成.确立中立帮助行为过当可罚性观念,须清除"赋予阻止犯罪义务"和"泛自由论"的理论障碍.中立帮助行为过当是主观过当与客观过当的结合体,而主观过当与客观过当分别体现为中立帮助行为过当与关联犯罪的"心理因果性"与"物理因果性".中立帮助行为过当的刑事责任类型包括"正犯化"和"共犯化",而"共犯化"又包括帮助犯化即从犯化,甚至正犯化和主犯化.由于有着"正当性基因",故对中立帮助行为过当应实行"紧缩的刑事政策",即将中立帮助行为过当的刑事处罚限定在关联犯罪侵犯国家安全、国防利益、军事职责、公共安全和暴力侵犯公民人身法益的场合.     

中国犯罪参与模式之定位:应然与实然之间的二元区分体系

我国的犯罪参与模式,究竟属于单一正犯体系还是二元区分体系存在激烈争论。中国刑法虽然没有直接采用"正犯"与"共犯"的概念,但是完全可以从中解释出正犯、教唆犯、帮助犯和组织犯的犯罪参与类型。从属性原则对于限缩处罚范围、维护共同犯罪领域的罪刑法定具有重要意义,应当坚守。刑法第29条第2款的规定并不违背从属性原则。从属性原则决定了正犯与共犯之间不法评价上的差异,这使得在应然层面上正犯与共犯之间存在刑罚上的一般性差异。但是,这种一般性差异并不否定刑罚个别化裁量。共同犯罪中的作用分类法并不能成为采纳单一正犯体系的理由,同时也无需采取"主犯正犯化、从犯共犯化"的观点。在立法实然与理论应然之间,中国的犯罪参与模式应当被定位为二元区分体系。     

Cybercrime jurisdiction

The principles that govern a sovereign’s exercise of jurisdiction to prohibit conduct and to sanction those who violate such prohibitions are well-established as to conduct occurring in the real, physical world. These principles evolved over the last several millennia, as law increased in sophistication and life became more complex. Real-world crime is, almost exclusively, a local phenomenon; the perpetrator(s) and victim(s) are all physically present at a specific geographical point when a crime is committed. The principles that govern the exercise of criminal jurisdiction are therefore predicated on the assumption that “crime” is a territorial phenomenon. Cybercrime makes these principles problematic in varying ways and in varying degrees. Unlike real-world crime, it is not physically grounded; cybercrime increasingly tends not to occur in a single sovereign territory. The perpetrator of a cybercrime may physically be in Country A, while his victim is in Country B, or his victims are in Countries B, C, D and so on. The perpetrator may further complicate matters by routing his attack on the victim in Country B through computers in Countries F and G. The result of these and other cybercrime scenarios is that the cybercrime is not committed “in” the territory of a single sovereign state; instead, “pieces” of the cybercrime occur in territory claimed by several different sovereigns.     

国际反网络犯罪立法及其对我国的启示——以《网络犯罪公约》为中心

《网络犯罪公约》作为国际社会反对网络犯罪、加强国际合作的重要产物，第一次明确了网络犯罪行为的种类及行为人的责任，规定了有关电子证据调查的特殊程序法制度，并确立了网络犯罪管辖的基本原则。但也存在网络犯罪圈划定范围过大、人权与自由保护不足、管辖权过分包容并易导致冲突等问题。因此对该公约需理性看待，应发掘、借鉴其闪光点来推动我国的网络犯罪立法。     

The Global Dimension of Cybercrime

Cyberspace and thus cybercrime know no boundaries. This chapter reviews some of the basic forms of cybercrime, draws specific attention to the issues that arise when offences occur across borders and in relation to organised criminal groupings, and provides illustrations based on some of the more celebrated cases of the past few years. The borderless nature of cyberspace and the exponential take-up of digital technology throughout the world guarantee that transnational cybercrime will remain a challenge. Fortunately, many nations are rising to this challenge, individually and collectively, but the web of international cooperation does have its holes and those nations that lag behind the leaders risk becoming havens for cybercriminals of the future.     

Cybercrime and social ties

This paper presents a case study of phishing in Amsterdam, demonstrating that the current literature on criminal phishing networks provides an incomplete picture of this form of organized crime. The paper adds to the current literature by describing an organized group of phishers whose relationships are based on real-world social networks rather than internet forums, and who mainly use social engineering rather than malware as a tool to acquire information from their victims. Because the origin and growth of the Amsterdam network differ from those of groups previously described, other possibilities for situational crime prevention arise. In addition to technological measures, for example those aimed at forums, this article focuses on measures that target the social ties on which the networks are based.     

Cybercrime investigation in Finland

Nordic police cooperation concerning cybercrimes has been developed during the last few years, e.g. through the Nordic Computer Forensics Investigators (NCFI) and Nordplus training programmes. More empirical research is needed in order to enhance cybercrime investigation and address the training needs of police officers. There is a knowledge gap concerning organizational models for the police’s cybercrime investigation: How the function is organized, what the professional characteristics of the staff are and how to combine computer forensics with crime investigation? The purpose of this paper was to study the organization of cybercrime investigation in Finland. Data were collected by a questionnaire from all 11 local police districts and the National Bureau of Investigation in July–August 2014. In addition, six thematic interviews of cybercrime investigators were conducted in 2014. Three investigation models of computer integrity crimes were found: (1) Computer forensic investigators conduct the entire pre-trial examination, (2) Computer forensic investigators conduct only the computer forensics, and tactical investigation is done by an occasional investigator, (3) Computer forensic investigators conduct only the computer forensics and tactical investigation is centralized to designated investigators. The recognition of various organizational models and educational backgrounds of investigators will help to develop cybercrime investigation training.     

網絡犯罪的刑罰思考

隨著我國進入網絡社會,網絡犯罪隨之而蔓延,刑法如何應對網絡犯罪,就成為一個社會關注的熱點問題,值得刑法學者重視。本期聚焦特別邀請陳興良、王華偉、李世陽三位學者從不同角度展開論述。陳興良教授《網絡犯罪的刑法應對》一文,從宏觀角度梳理了網絡犯罪的類型演變和立法嫗變,並對網絡犯罪進行了教義重塑「總體而言,我國對於網絡犯罪的刑事立法是及時有效的,但隨著網絡犯罪不斷異化和蛻變,加強對網絡犯罪的刑法教義學研究,為司法機關懲治網絡犯罪提供理論根據就變得極為必要。     

Digital Realism and the Governance of Spam as Cybercrime

Spamming is a major threat to the formation of public trust in the Internet and discourages broader civil participation in the emerging information society. To the individual, spams are usually little more than a nuisance, but collectively they expose Internet users to a panoply of new risks while threatening the communications and commercial infrastructure. Spamming also raises important questions of criminological interest. On the one hand it is an example of a pure cybercrime – a harmful behaviour mediated by the Internet that is the subject of criminal law, while on the other hand, it is a behaviour that has in practice been most effectively contained technologically by the manipulation of ‘code’ – but at what cost? Because there is not an agreed meaning as to what constitutes ‘online order’ that renders it simply and uncritically reducible to a set of formulae and algorithms that can be subsequently imposed (surreptitiously) by technological processes. The imposition of order online, as it is offline, needs to be subject to critical discussion and also checks and balances that have their origins in the authority of law. This article deconstructs and analyses spamming behaviour, before exploring the boundaries between law and code (technology) as governance in order to inform and stimulate the debate over the embedding of cybercrime prevention policy within the code itself.     

Cybercrime Tendencies and Legislation in the Republic of Macedonia

The advancement of information and communication technologies opens new venues and ways for cybercriminals to commit crime. There are several different types of cybercrime offences that need to be treated in a separate and different manner. The major international source that provides guidelines for treatment of cybercrime is the Convention on Cybercrime adopted by the Council of Europe and the European Commission Action Plan. The purpose of the paper is to present, discuss and analyze the Macedonian legislation treating cybercrime, with respect to the specific cases typically encountered in practice and the international guidelines concerning cybercrime. The major source of cybercrime legislation in Macedonia is the Criminal Code with provisions thereof in ten of its articles; it addresses cybercrimes such as personal data abuse, copyright and piracy issues, production and distribution of child pornography, computer viruses, intrusions into computer systems, computer fraud and computer forgery. We also present and analyze reports on cybercrime complaints and victims from Macedonia, issued by the Internet Crime Complaint Center and the Macedonian Ministry of Internal Affairs. The reports reveal the unusually high number of complaints for perpetrators and victims originating from Macedonia. Furthermore, we highlight several recent cybercrime cases reported in Macedonia. All things considered, the Macedonian penal legislation is modern and it follows the current European and world standards. It provides guidelines for successful resolution of cybercrime committed in the Republic of Macedonia. However, it could be improved by a more active inclusion of Macedonian authorities in the global response to cybercrime and by stronger enforcement of cybercrime prevention measures and strategies.     

知识产权与网络犯罪立法完善需认真研究的几个问题

随着我国经济的发展和科学技术的进步,尤其是加入世贸组织以后,知识产权保护问题的重要性和迫切性愈来愈被社会所认识,对侵犯知识产权行为的法律完善和执法不仅引起全社会关注,甚至成为我国与一些国家双边关系中的焦点问题之一,引起了国家的高度重视。随着计算机网络的广泛普及和应用,网络领域也出现了一些危害社会的新情况。一些知识产权行政执法部门和司法机关针对实践中遇